I just wonder if during the voting, we want the discussion to continue, or to let the votes speak for themselves.

I think a week of discussion followed by a week of voting is the cleanest way to do things. Our biggest problem is not knowing when to shut up, so a formal opening and closing of a discussion is, IMO, necessary.

---

I think a week of discussion followed by a week of voting is the cleanest way to do things. Our biggest problem is not knowing when to shut up, so a formal opening and closing of a discussion is, IMO, necessary.

I get PMoon's concern, but what if someone has gone on vacation when an issue comes up and doesn't get back until the voting period has started and has something unique to say? If the discussion is all taking place in one thread and you're tired of reading about it, then don't read the thread!

---

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

---

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

I think that depends on the item under discussion. Starting another thread, I think a majority would be sufficient. Changing site etiquette or disciplinary procedures, maybe we'd want something higher than that.

---

I'm bothered by the calls for 2/3 majorities. A simple majority should suffice.

I'm curious as to what bothers you about a 2/3 majority. My gut feeling is that 2/3 majority = of the good, but maybe there's some problem with it I'm not seeing.

---

This is where I waffle. On one hand, I see what billytea and amych are saying. But it seems to me that some of the discontent expressed by people was that we are changing too fast and losing something in the process.

---

I used to be part of a cooperative theatre company. It was the administrative crap and the meetings that killed it. (Oh, and money) Having to deal with the grinding issues, and dealing with the personal hurts that came out of those conflicts took away from the joy of creating. And it was the "Where are we going?" question that caused the worst kind of personal conflicts. I'm getting deja vu , and it's starting to freak me out.

So, this bureaucracy is making me antsy. I want bring forward that I don't like the idea of a separate debate thread or a separate decree thread. I think we have two threads right now (bureaucracy and Press) which serve similart purposes, that would suit the decision making process we are contemplating. Are we really expecting to have to use this process that often? (God, I hope not. )

And is there any consideration for what happens if there is immediate consensus on something. Does it still need to be put through the decision making wringer?

That said, if we go down this road:

I think there needs to be a quorum. If only 20 people are debating and voting on an issue, than why is it being discussed?

I think that debate needs to be imprersonal. Maybe we need to set the style of debate we will allow. Is it crazy to ask for a debate forum where people present their views and their arguments why first, without jumping in and picking apart individual arguments until everyone has had there say. I just don't like to see debates get personal when they don't have to.

---

Just wanted to say that even if I'm not actively posting here, I am reading the discussion, as work allows.

---

Sue:

I am having the same sort of theatre dejo vu, but I am hoping this will help make that go away.

I think the "Decree" thread isnt a thread.

I think it is a page that just lists decisions and dates, so people will know whether or they can bring them up again.

---

My (not fully formed) gut feelings on majorities --

• The problems voiced with our decision-making so far seem to be more along the lines of "early voices in a discussion get lost" than "not enough people support this at all".

• Every time we've decided things by poll, it's been by simple majority. And I don't remember us ever having a result anywhere close to 2/3. And I don't remember any calls for supermajority until now.

• I'll admit (at risk of sounding Ugly American -- I know that ours isn't the only way, it's just the one I know) that my gut feelings on votes and the like are informed on a deep level by the US political system. And the

only things our system demands that high a majority for are impeachments and constitutional amendments. And that was done deliberately to make it damned hard to change certain things. I don't think that's the kind of barrier to change we need here. Yes, people feel that things have been changing fast, but I see that as a problem of adjusting to a lot of growth, not of needing to clamp down and say "we need to set things up so it's damned near impossible for anything to change."

---